Amgen Hedges Its Bets With Cross-Petition For Certiorari Of Biosimilar Decision

Although Amgen originally did not petition the Supreme Court for certiorari to review the first Federal Circuit decision interpreting the BPCIA framework for resolving biosimilar patent disputes, Amgen now has filed a “Conditional Cross-Petition” for certiorari. Amgen urges the Court to deny Sandoz’s petition for certiorari, but asks the Court to grant its Conditional Cross-Petition if the Court decides to grant Sandoz’s petition. The gist of Amgen’s position seems to be that the 180-day pre-marketing notice issue raised by Sandoz is not ripe for review, but if the Court decides to review that aspect of the Federal Circuit decision, it should consider it in the context of the statutory framework as a whole, including the “requirement” that the biosimilar applicant provide a copy of its application to the reference product sponsor, and review the Federal Circuit’s decision that that “requirement” is optional.

The Federal Circuit Decision

(2) Subsection (k) application information
Not later than 20 days after the Secretary notifies the subsection (k) applicant that the application has been accepted for review, the subsection (k) applicant−
(A) shall provideto the reference product sponsor a copy of the application submitted to the Secretary under subsection (k), and such other information that describes the process or processes used to manufacture the biological product that is the subject of such application; and
(B) may provide to the reference product sponsor additional information requested by or on behalf of the reference product sponsor.

42 USC § 262(l)(8)(A) provides:

(8) Notice of commercial marketing and preliminary injunction
(A) Notice of commercial marketing
The subsection (k) applicant shall providenotice to the reference product sponsor not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under subsection (k).
(B) Preliminary injunction
After receiving the notice under subparagraph (A) and before such date of the first commercial marketing of such biological product, the reference product sponsor may seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting the subsection (k) applicant from engaging in the commercial manufacture or sale of such biological product until the court decides the issue of patent validity, enforcement, and infringement with respect to any patent that is [included in either of the first lists but not included on the agreed upon list or the second lists].

Sandoz’s Petition For Certiorari

Sandoz petition for certiorari raised two questions:

Whether notice of commercial marketing given before FDA approval can be effective and whether, in any event, treating Section 262(l)(8)(A) as a stand-alone requirement and creating an injunctive remedy that delays all biosimilars by 180 days after approval is improper.

Sandoz’s main argument is that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of this provision effectively “grant[s] a 180-day ‘exclusivity windfall’ to reference product sponsors” that is not supported by the language or purpose of the statute, and that “will delay the availability of all biosimilars for 180 days more than Congress intended—even if the sponsor has no valid patent claims and even if the sponsor already has had the opportunity to pursue any valid claims.”

Amgen’s Opposition To Sandoz’s Petition For Certiorari

Amgen filed a brief in opposition to Sandoz’s petition, urging the Court to decline to review the Federal Circuit decision. Amgen’s brief sets forth three main arguments:

The Federal Circuit’s decision that notice of commercial marketing cannot given before FDA approval “does not conflict with any decision of [the Supreme] Court or the statutory text.”

The issue raised by Sandoz’s second question “is not actually presented in this case.”

Other cases percolating in the courts raise issues about the meaning of the same or related provisions of § 262(l), and so “[t]his Court should wait to take a BPCIA case until the law has evolved further.”

Amgen’s Conditional Cross-Petition For Certiorari

As noted above, Amgen’s Conditional Cross-Petition urges the Court to deny Sandoz’s petition for certiorari , but asks the Court to grant its Conditional Cross-Petition if the Court decides to grant Sandoz’s petition, so that the Court can consider both statutory provisions in context. With regard to the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of § 262(l)(2), Amgen provides several reasons why the court erred by interpreting “shall” as “may” instead of “must.”

Other Biosimlar Cases

Other biosimilar cases that may be making their way to the Supreme Court include Amgen v. Apotex, relating to Apotex’s proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) product. Apotex has appealed the district court’s application of § 262(l)(8)(A), arguing that that requirement to give 180-day pre-marketing notice does not apply if the biosimilar applicant has provided a copy of its application in accordance with § 262(l)(2). The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in that case on April 4, 2016.

Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., relating to Celltrion’s biosimilar of Janssen’s Remicade® (infliximab) product, which was approved by the FDA on April 5, 2016, may raise similar and/or different questions under § 262(l), such as whether § 262(l)(2)(A) permits a biosimilar applicant to provide a copy of its application but not information regarding its manufacturing process; whether a biosimilar applicant can circumvent the negotiation procedures of § 262(l)(4) and (5) by consenting to the reference product sponsor’s patent list, and whether providing notice of commercial marketing before a product is approved accelerates the time in which the reference product sponsor must bring suit.

Other biosimilar disputes are bound to raise other issues, as parties try to operate under (or around) the complex provisions of § 262(l). The question is how long the Supreme Court will wait to weigh in, and how parties will adapt to evolving understandings of the statute in the meantime.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.